russian – HPCwirehttps://www.hpcwire.com
Since 1987 - Covering the Fastest Computers in the World and the People Who Run ThemFri, 09 Dec 2016 21:51:05 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.760365857Blacklisted Russian Supercomputing Company Speaks to Suspicionshttps://www.hpcwire.com/2013/06/07/blacklisted_russian_supercomputing_company_speaks_of_suspicions/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=blacklisted_russian_supercomputing_company_speaks_of_suspicions
https://www.hpcwire.com/2013/06/07/blacklisted_russian_supercomputing_company_speaks_of_suspicions/#respondFri, 07 Jun 2013 07:00:00 +0000http://www.hpcwire.com/?p=4028A few months ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce named the Russian supercomputer company, T-Platforms, on their entity list based on vaguely worded assertions that they were involved with supplying systems designed to create weapons of mass destruction. The company has, not surprisingly, denied the allegations and gave HPCwire an exclusive interview to....

]]>Almost two months ago, we reported on a document from the United States Department of Commerce that pinned rather hefty suspicions on the Russian supercomputer company, T-Platforms.

According to the Department of Commerce, T-Platforms has been associated with “activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.”

“We have reason to believe that T-Platforms is associated with military procurement activities, including the development of computer systems for military end-users and the production of computers for nuclear research. T-Platforms has locations in Germany and Taiwan that are engaged in the same types of activities of concern. Based on T-Platforms’ activities, including those of its locations in Germany and Taiwan, the ERC determined that it is engaged in activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests and poses a high risk of involvement in violations of the EAR.”

We have since spent a great deal of time trying to better understand the cause and story behind the blacklisting. While the U.S. Department of Commerce has been mum about specifics, we were able to eek some details out of the company over the course of a couple of months, culminating in a more defined Q and A from their CEO, Vsevelod Opanasenko.

T-Platforms argues that they have been maligned because of their competitive position, despite the very clear assertions from the U.S. government that they have landed on the foul side of trade by providing systems and technologies to hostile nations. As you will see, particularly at the end of the interview, their sense of American technology competitiveness is creating an “east versus west” paradigm–one that is being fed by moves like banning foreign competitors. Although they told us they were not permitted to speak about the allegations, Opanasenko lays out his case rather clearly…more to come.

HPCwire: As you know, we reported on the document that stated that T-Platforms had been “blacklisted” by the U.S. Department of Commerce due to conditions that involved national security. What really happened here–what do you admit might have been seen as potentially a threat to U.S. national security and what do you believe is false?

Opanasenko: We have received a document from the Department of Commerce outlining the reasons to include T-Platforms on the Entry List. We believe it must have been a misunderstanding or an error, at best, because the assumptions behind these reasons are either irrelevant to us or based on some kind of misinterpretations.

We are working with US lawyers to prepare an appeal. As to whether we admit that we might have been seen as a threat to U.S. national security, we’d first need to understand whether the US administration views Russia as a friend and partner, or, primarily, as an enemy.

The connection is obvious, to my mind. We have always evangelized HPC and we now finally see local awareness and user demand growing. We apply huge efforts to develop HPC in Russia as well as in Europe. And we obviously do a lot to encourage industrial use of HPC in our home market. As a result, our industrial customers become more competitive as HPC cheapens and shortens their R&D cycle.

So, if the US administration considers Russia an enemy, it would hardly be interested in increased competitiveness of Russia’s manufacturing. If, on the contrary, Russia is viewed as a partner, we present no threat to US national security or foreign policy interests whatsoever.

I’d also add that, as we’ve been told by many, it’s quite unusual that a company like ours would turn up in this particular list. Taking this into account, and also knowing competitive practices applied by certain US corporations in Russia and Europe, and methods they use to fight us, I couldn’t dismiss the possibility of their involvement. I’m not going to voice particular brands to avoid speculation.

HPCwire: What will the basis of your appeal be? Is it even possible for you to appeal this–and isn’t the damage done to your business by the point that this is finally resolved going to be so great as to significantly harm your business permanently?

Opanasenko: Our appeal is based on the evidence proving that we have not violated anything. As an initial stage of the appeal, the Bureau of Industry and Security has asked us to answer a number of questions. Some of them are simply based on incorrect assumptions and need to be clarified, and the rest of them require additional information which we are going to provide in full. Whether the decision can actually be reconsidered, is a question to the US authorities.

The damage done to our business is already quite substantial: for the latest 2.5 months our product development and operations are frozen, the costs are being cut down to the minimum, and we have no idea on how long it will last. It is obvious that if the situation persists for a long time, the damage will be irreparable and, indeed, it would spoil our business forever. I would rather not fall into such pessimistic forecasts though.

Our image has also suffered a tangible damage. We hope that, above all, this interview helps our partners to better understand the situation and avoid a one-sided interpretation. In particular, I want to stress that all our purchase activities have always been transparent, and our suppliers have been fully informed on end-users and end-use of our projects. I hope that, as I said, this is a misunderstanding, and the information provided with our appeal would help to quickly resolve the situation.

HPCwire: Given your dealings with U.S. as a company, are you inclined to believe that the U.S. is viewing Russia as an enemy? If so, where does supercomputing fit into the “threat” concept?

Opanasenko: The answer to this question actually depends on how our work with BIS will proceed. If it appears that considering our appeal at BIS takes an unnecessary long time, we would be indeed inclined to believe that certain politics is involved. If the procedure goes smoothly after BIS receives straight answers supported by solid facts from us, the decision could be quickly revised.

In fact, I believe it would be easier to suspect economic rather than political motives to underline the situation. HPC is widely recognized as a powerful competitive tool. ‘To out-compete is to out-compute’ has become a commonplace. Strategically, greater achievements in supercomputing mean better competitiveness in the global market for a country: in this sense, a potential rival is indeed a ‘threat’ to U.S. as a current HPC market leader.

It is clear that T-Platforms is not the only HPC manufacturer able to satisfy the local demand for supercomputing power, and the decision taken by BIS will primarily affect the distribution of vendor market shares, giving the U.S. companies the opportunity to regain the local market won by T-Platforms in recent years. It is also clear that blocking a successful local manufacturer affects the HPC technology development in the country, in the long term. Although, being a private business, we would definitely prefer to view U.S. as a technological partner, like we have always done, well outside any ‘threat concepts’.

HPCwire: Do you feel there has been a conspiracy to keep T-Platforms from growing into a wider market? If so, please give us a sense of that theory—

Opanasenko: I would rather confine myself to facts. We have observed growing demand for alternative non-US hardware vendors in Europe for several years in a row, and our recent progress supports this trend. Last year we have reported our collaboration project for PRACE with the Finnish CSC, we are about to announce our first delivery to Juelich Supercomputer Center, we were successful as a developer of choice for the new QPACE project. We, as well as some of our customers, were explicitly informed more than once that our progress is not viewed upon favorably by everyone on a political level, and attempts of pressure have indeed been made. It is a fact, not a theory, that our ability to challenge the power balance on the EU HPC market disturbed certain politicians.

We were always quite independent in terms of technology choice, trying to satisfy diversified customer needs rather than promote a ‘favorite’ vendor. This contradicts customer policy of certain U.S. vendors. As a result, we sometimes were openly refused product and pricing support by certain manufacturers.

Rather than a conspiracy against T-Platforms, these facts, in my opinion, show one tendency which potentially threatens healthy development of the entire HPC industry and should be seriously reconsidered. I mean an intention to artificially restrict competition and keep current global market leaders in place, at whatever price.

HPCwire: It’s hard to argue with the fact that America’s dominance in the tech hardware market is significant–and controls the bulk of international business. If T-Platforms is cut out of the American business supply chain and others, including China and Japan build their capabilities on the chip, interconnect and system fronts, as you told us before, you think there will be a mass exodous away from American vendors, correct? In other words, as you noted, this is because of these types of perceived business practices–this would, in effect, create a East v. West technology ecosystem, no?

I would agree here. Look at what’s happening in the global market. EU plans to invest billions of Euros in the development of semiconductors. President Putin creates ‘industrial clusters’ to improve research and manufacturing. President Obama advocates the return of manufacturing to the U.S. and ensuring American technological leadership. This shows that globalization has obvious flaws, and local manufacturing is likely to rise again, resulting in greater customization of products and independency from imported goods. While corporations benefit from globalization, many politicians begin to understand that it contradicts national interests and does not always help to address competitiveness, employment and environmental issues. Today, large corporations are weary of private initiatives undertaken by small and medium-sized companies. The tendency is to either buy potential rivals or to simply drive them out of the market.

No one wants to put the ‘East’ against the ‘West’. However, this opposition automatically results from certain government decisions. Sanctions against Huawei, now expelled from the US market, like our blockade, prompt national economies to develop their own competence in key technological areas, instead of using technologies developed globally. As a result, Europe, China, Japan, South Korea are now independently developing semiconductor industry. If American corporations were more open-minded in terms of technological cooperation, this could have been avoided.

In other words, by restricting competition and joint development, Americans are forcing the ‘East’ to go its own way, that is, to develop its own independent technology. As a result, some customers might indeed leave U.S. companies and opt for the ‘East’. In the long term it undermines U.S. corporations rather than reduces the competition threat, because they virtually ‘bite the hand that feeds’.

T-Platforms has always supported global collaboration, and all of our projects were based on partnering with major U.S. vendors. However when we are cut out of the global technological chain we have no choice but to go for local government support and develop home-grown technology. This sets our countries apart in the area where there should have been mutually profitable collaboration.

***

While T-Platforms has pulled out of the International Supercomputing Conference this year, we are expecting to engage in a short meeting with the company for further details. If you have questions that you’d like considered, please ping me at editor@hpcwire.com

]]>https://www.hpcwire.com/2013/06/07/blacklisted_russian_supercomputing_company_speaks_of_suspicions/feed/04028Collaboration Brings New Tools to Russian Oil Industry Geologistshttps://www.hpcwire.com/2011/02/08/collaboration_brings_new_tools_to_russian_oil_industry_geologists/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=collaboration_brings_new_tools_to_russian_oil_industry_geologists
https://www.hpcwire.com/2011/02/08/collaboration_brings_new_tools_to_russian_oil_industry_geologists/#respondTue, 08 Feb 2011 08:00:00 +0000http://www.hpcwire.com/?p=9107Russia is home to some of the largest oil and gas industry resources, but the the processes used for discovery and production require sophisticated, expensive systems. A new industry-university collaboration is bringing cloud-based tools to the table to refine operations.

]]>Russia is among the world’s leaders in the petroleum industry with some of the largest reserves of both natural gas and crude oil. While the potential for massive economic benefit in the country is clear, there are still some hurdles on the production front that some oil and gas companies in Russia are seeking to remove using high-performance computing and cloud-based approaches.

IBM recently announced a collaboration to bring high-performance cloud computing tools and services to Russian State Gubkin Oil and Gas University and Gazprom Neft—NTTS.

The solutions IBM has been contracted to provide include those that will refine the processes by which geologists, geophysicists and oil engineers who manage gas field discovery, development, and daily tasks handle nearly every aspect of their operations.

A crucial aspect of IBMs involvement in the project is to provide a central processing and storage hub to handle geological and geophysical field data. The initial report on the collaboration indicated that the solutions will be “based on IBM’s Chemical and Petroleum Industry Information Framework…and will help increase the amount of prospected and explored resources, improve their recoverability, accelerate well completion, mitigate risks and reduce production costs.”

The first step of the collaboration will be to create an advanced collaboration environment or virtual workspace for geologists. This platform will allow geographically distributed scientists to build hydrodynamic 3D and 4D models together to better “interpret seismic study data using cloud computing technologies, distributed resource access, and model calculation and interpretation on IBM supercomputers located at Gubkin Oil and Gas University.”

IBM has significant experience in creating digital oil production management systems as well as geological modeling systems for major oil and gas corporations. Mikhail Strugov, who leads IBM Russia’s Oil and Gas division stated that this effort will mark “the first time an integrated platform is built in Russia to improve oil and gas facilities construction performance.”

]]>https://www.hpcwire.com/2011/02/08/collaboration_brings_new_tools_to_russian_oil_industry_geologists/feed/09107Bringing Russian IT Up to Speedhttps://www.hpcwire.com/2011/01/26/bringing_russian_it_up_to_speed/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bringing_russian_it_up_to_speed
https://www.hpcwire.com/2011/01/26/bringing_russian_it_up_to_speed/#respondWed, 26 Jan 2011 08:00:00 +0000http://www.hpcwire.com/?p=9149Russia is involved in an intense game of technological "catch up" according to one Accenture analyst. Cloud computing, if the necessary infrastructure to support it can become a priority, can help bring the country closer to its technology goals.

]]>This week in The Moscow Times, Accenture Russia’s Vadim Pestun produced a thought-provoking editorial on the future of Russian IT following decades of economic and social upheaval and the possibilities that are opening both within the country as well as on the outsourcing of IT fronts.

Pestun states that “Russia’s adoption of IT, as of so much from abroad, has not been a one-off wholesale transplant of foreign know-how into the Russian context. It has involved—and continues to involve—characteristics particular to our nation and historical development.”

Following the end of the Cold War and new paradigm for market activity, Russia undertook a game of technological “catch-up” but as Pestun reminds, this catching up took place during a time of incredible upheaval and chaos. Software developers were rushing to fill new gaps in the market and consultancies emerged with only shreds of practical advice to present. Accordingly, he argues, a great deal of the still developing IT marketplace reverted into “cronyism and no-bid tenders…compounding an already lamentable situation.”

Russia’s legacy in IT is rooted in what Pestun calls “palpable disruption, ill-advised projects, questionable business justifications and poor interconnectivity, resulting in an uncompetitive market.”

While this sounds like quite a bit of doom and gloom, Pestun says there is light on the horizon, which is due in part to the financial meltdown that has caused IT decision makers affected to ponder how they manage technology projects.

In addition to a number of other signs of hope for Russian IT, Pestun sees cloud computing as one of the elements of hope around the bend. Still there is a connectivity problem that is preventing the country from fully realizing the benefits.

As Pestun states, “implementation of such a system [cloud computing] on a national basis would need a high-speed, reliable connectivity backbone in place, either on the basis of fiber-optics or satellite technology. Also, either automated or semi-automated mechanisms would need to be in place to support the technology with minimum human input.”

Despite these issues, which also include security, privacy and reliability, Pestun contends that there is “no more robust methodology by which Russia can fully catch up, optimize its IT processes as a nation, and get on with the issues of doing business in the modern world.”